Tag Archives: SJV

Tatiana Hernandez v. Barcelona Manor Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 26F-H012-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2026-04-29
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tatiana Hernandez Counsel —
Respondent Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

26F-H012-REL Decision – 1410471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:19:58 (63.6 KB)

26F-H012-REL Decision – 1414509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:19:59 (4742.7 KB)

26F-H012-REL Decision – 1420620.pdf

Uploaded 2026-06-11 01:20:00 (97.8 KB)

Briefing Document: Hernandez v. Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H012-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Tatiana Hernandez (Petitioner) and the Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. (Respondent). The central conflict involved the responsibility for repairs and water damage caused by a failed, non-code-compliant plumbing component (a P-trap) serving Hernandez’s unit (Unit 624) but located within the ceiling cavity of the unit below (Unit 620).

The Petitioner argued that the component was an HOA responsibility because it was located outside her unit boundaries, was inaccessible for maintenance, and the defect was a pre-existing condition caused by a previous owner’s negligence. The Respondent contended that by purchasing the unit, Hernandez "inherited" the defect and the responsibility for its maintenance, particularly as the fixture exclusively served her unit.

On April 29, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella dismissed the petition. The Judge ruled that Hernandez failed to prove the Association was responsible under Arizona law or the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), noting that Hernandez was on notice of prior plumbing issues through the Residential Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS).

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Maintenance Responsibility and Unit Boundaries

The dispute hinged on the interpretation of the Association's CC&Rs regarding where a unit ends and common elements begin.

  • Petitioner’s Interpretation: Hernandez relied on CC&R Section 9.1(iii), which assigns Association responsibility for plumbing facilities located outside unit boundaries or contained within a unit but serving other parts of the property. She argued that because the P-trap was located in the structural cavity of the unit below, requiring the destruction of building materials for access, it fell under Association maintenance.
  • Respondent’s Interpretation: The Association pointed to CC&R Section 9.2, which requires owners to maintain "built-in fixtures," including plumbing fixtures like tubs. They argued that because the drain exclusively serves Unit 624, it remains the owner’s responsibility regardless of its physical location in a wall or ceiling.
  • Legal Conclusion: The Judge found that Hernandez did not establish that the P-trap served anything other than her own unit. Consequently, it was deemed a unit-specific component rather than a common element.
2. The Doctrine of "Inherited" Negligence

A primary point of contention was whether a current owner is liable for the unauthorized or negligent acts of a previous owner.

  • The Defect: Inspection reports from Erik Myers and the Association's maintenance staff (Steve and Art) confirmed the use of a corrugated "accordion style" P-trap. This component was not code-compliant under the International Plumbing Code (Section 1002.2), which requires traps to be self-scouring and free of interior partitions.
  • The Negligence: Both parties agreed that the previous owner, Guy Keller, was negligent in installing the non-code component.
  • The Association's Stance: Board President Bryson Struse articulated a "buyer beware" position, stating that an owner inherits all issues associated with a property upon purchase, including non-disclosed or non-code-compliant modifications.
3. Impact of the Residential Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS)

The Judge’s decision heavily favored the Association due to the documentation provided during the home-buying process.

  • Disclosure Content: The SPDS provided by the previous owner mentioned "minor plumbing repair" and specifically noted that the "tub had leak from drain nut which was tightened."
  • Judicial Weight: The Judge concluded that Hernandez was "on notice" that a plumbing issue existed prior to her purchase. This undermined her claim that she had no knowledge of potential defects and therefore could not be held responsible for the subsequent failure.
4. Due Diligence and Inspections

The case highlighted a perceived failure in the due diligence process:

  • HOA Oversight: Hernandez argued the HOA failed in its due diligence by not ensuring the previous owner’s repairs were done professionally and to code when they were first made aware of leaks.
  • Buyer’s Inspection: Hernandez conducted a professional home inspection prior to purchase. However, the report did not identify the concealed, non-code-compliant P-trap. The HOA argued that the responsibility to identify such defects lies with the buyer and their hired professionals, not the Association.

Important Quotes with Context

On Maintenance and Access

Tatiana Hernandez: "I cannot go on a daily basis to my below neighbors cut his ceiling and access the type [pipe] on a weekly basis… It is fully located inside the ceiling of the unit below, which is not an area I own, control, or can access."

Context: Hernandez argued that the physical inaccessibility of the plumbing component from within her own unit legally shifted the maintenance burden to the Association, as she could not perform the "regular maintenance" required of owners.

On Property Inheritance

Dr. Bryson Struse (HOA President): "When you buy something with a problem, it’s yours to fix. You’re responsible for what it is… The fact is that the problem is there that you have a tub that has a non-code drain that’s causing damage to the condo below."

Context: This quote summarizes the Respondent's core argument: legal responsibility for a unit's fixtures transfers to the new owner upon purchase, regardless of who created the defect or whether it was hidden.

On Disclosure and Responsibility

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella: "Petitioner was aware that a plumbing issue had existed prior to her purchasing the unit… Moreover, Petitioner did not establish that the area containing the P-trap is in an area of a Unit maintained by the Association."

Context: Found in the final decision, this statement explains the legal basis for dismissing the petition. The Judge linked the prior disclosure of a "drain nut" leak to the current failure, placing the burden of the pre-existing condition on the current owner.

Actionable Insights

For Unit Owners
  • Scrutinize Seller Disclosures: Even minor mentions of "tightened nuts" or "minor repairs" in an SPDS should be viewed as red flags for potentially larger, systemic issues. Owners should request specific invoices or permits for such repairs.
  • Verify Code Compliance for Concealed Plumbing: When purchasing older units or units with known past renovations, owners should consider specialized inspections (e.g., camera scopes) for plumbing located in shared structural cavities.
  • Understand Maintenance Boundaries: Owners must recognize that "exclusive service" often trumps "physical location." If a pipe only serves one unit, the Association is unlikely to be held responsible for it, even if it is located inside a common wall or a neighbor’s ceiling.
For Associations and Boards
  • Standardize Repair Verifications: To prevent "owner-to-owner" disputes from escalating to administrative hearings, Associations should require proof of licensed contractors and building permits for any plumbing repairs that connect to the common vertical stack.
  • Clear Communication on Responsibility: The Association’s early and consistent communication—citing specific CC&R sections (9.1, 9.4, and 13.2)—was critical in successfully defending their position in court.
  • Documentation Retention: Maintaining records of past complaints from neighbors (like the complaints from Mario in Unit 620) is essential for establishing the history of a defect, though in this case, it was the current owner who ended up liable for the lack of professional resolution.
For Real Estate Professionals
  • Advise on "Hidden" Components: Realtors should advise buyers that standard home inspections often miss components located behind drywall or in structural cavities, and that under Arizona law, these "inherited" defects generally become the buyer's financial responsibility.

End of Document

Comprehensive Study Guide: Hernandez v. Barcelona Manor Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Tatiana Hernandez (Petitioner) and the Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. (Respondent), adjudicated in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 26F-H012-REL).

1. Case Overview

The matter concerns the legal and financial responsibility for a failed plumbing component (a non-code-compliant "P-trap") that caused water damage to units located below the Petitioner's condominium. The central conflict involves whether a unit owner "inherits" the liability for negligent modifications made by a previous owner and whether the location of a plumbing fixture (concealed in a neighbor’s ceiling) reclassifies it as a "common element" under Association responsibility.

2. Key Legal Framework

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1247 (Upkeep of the Condominium): Establishes that the Association is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements, while each unit owner is responsible for their individual unit. It also mandates that owners provide access through their units for these repairs.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212: Defines "common elements" as all portions of the condominium other than the units.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(A): Requires the Association to maintain property insurance on common elements.
Barcelona Manor Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
  • Section 9.1(iii): Assigns the Association responsibility for all conduits, ducts, plumbing, and wiring that furnish utility services and are contained in portions of a unit maintained by the Association, or that service parts of the property other than the unit where they are located.
  • Section 9.2: Assigns the owner responsibility for maintaining and repairing their unit, specifically including built-in fixtures such as plumbing fixtures (e.g., tubs).
  • Section 9.4 (Additional Provisions): States that if damage is caused to common elements or other units due to the "act or neglect" of an owner (or their guests/occupants), that owner is responsible for the costs of repair to the extent not covered by Association insurance.
  • Section 13.2: Outlines the Association's authority to perform an owner's maintenance obligations and levy a special assessment against the owner for the costs incurred.

3. Central Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Tatiana Hernandez)
  • Inaccessibility: The failed P-trap was located in the ceiling cavity of the unit below (Unit 620). Petitioner argued she could not inspect, maintain, or access the component without destroying building materials in another person's home.
  • Lack of Negligence: Hernandez moved into the unit in September 2025; the leak was discovered in October 2025. She argued she did not install the faulty pipe and had no knowledge of its non-code status.
  • Location-Based Responsibility: Under CC&R 9.1(iii), she argued that since the pipe was outside her unit boundaries, it should be an Association responsibility.
Respondent’s Position (Barcelona Manor Association)
  • Succession of Liability: The Board argued that when a person purchases a condominium, they "inherit" any existing issues or defects, regardless of age or previous ownership.
  • Service-Based Responsibility: The Association contended that because the plumbing component specifically serves the bathtub in Unit 624, it remains the owner’s fixture regardless of its location in a structural cavity.
  • Owner Negligence: The previous owner installed a non-code-compliant corrugated "accordion" pipe. The Association viewed this as an "act or neglect" of an owner under Section 9.4, making the owner of Unit 624 liable for the resulting damage to Units 620 and 616.

4. Critical Evidence and Timeline

The Evidence
  • P-trap Inspection: General contractor Erik Myers identified a corrugated pipe used for the bathtub drain, which violated the International Plumbing Code (Section 1002.2) requiring traps to be self-scouring and without interior partitions.
  • Seller's Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS): The previous owner (Guy Keller) disclosed a minor plumbing repair in July 2025, noting that a "drain nut" on the tub had been tightened.
  • Maintenance Reports: HOA maintenance staff (Steve and Art) determined the leak was running from the 624 tub drain down to the 620 ceiling and into heater closets.
Timeline of Events
  • Pre-August 2025: Previous owner performs non-code plumbing repairs.
  • August 2025: Tatiana Hernandez purchases Unit 624.
  • October 31, 2025: Leak discovered; Hernandez is notified and ceases using the shower.
  • November 21, 2025: Association inspection identifies the tub drain as the source.
  • December 18, 2025: HOA Board issues a final letter denying responsibility and assigning all repair costs to Hernandez.
  • January 26, 2026: Hernandez files a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
  • April 17, 2026: Formal hearing held via Google Meet.
  • April 29, 2026: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the final decision.

5. The Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The ALJ, Sondra J. Vanella, dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Association. The decision was based on several key findings:

  1. Notice: The Petitioner was legally "on notice" that plumbing issues existed because the SPDS mentioned a tub drain leak repair by the previous owner.
  2. Specific Service: The P-trap, while located in a cavity, specifically served only the Petitioner's unit and was not a common element serving the wider condominium property.
  3. Failure of Proof: The Petitioner did not establish that the area containing the P-trap was an area maintained by the Association under the CC&Rs.
  4. Ownership of Defects: The judge upheld the principle that the unit owner is responsible for the plumbing fixtures of their unit, even if those fixtures were improperly installed by a predecessor.

6. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Which specific CC&R section did the Petitioner use to argue that the Association should maintain plumbing located outside unit boundaries?
  • Answer: Section 9.1(iii).
  1. What was the technical reason provided by Erik Myers for why the P-trap violated plumbing code?
  • Answer: It was a corrugated pipe with interior partitions, which violated the requirement for fixture traps to be self-scouring.
  1. What did the previous owner disclose on line 285 of the Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement?
  • Answer: That the tub had a leak from a drain nut which was tightened.
  1. According to CC&R Section 9.4, under what circumstances must an owner pay for damages that would otherwise be a common expense?
  • Answer: When the damage is caused by the "act or neglect" of an owner, their family, guests, or occupants.
  1. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding her "due diligence"?
  • Answer: She argued she hired an inspector through her realtor and the leak was not discovered or disclosed as a non-code-compliant installation at that time.

7. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Conflict of Accessibility vs. Responsibility: Discuss the legal tension presented in this case regarding a unit owner's responsibility for components they cannot physically access. Should an owner be held liable for the maintenance of a fixture located behind a neighbor's drywall? Support your argument using the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1247.
  2. Succession of Negligence: Analyze the Association’s stance that a buyer "inherits" the negligence of a previous owner. Is this a fair interpretation of "act or neglect" under CC&R 9.4? Consider the implications for future condominium buyers if they are held responsible for concealed, non-code-compliant work done years prior.
  3. The Role of Disclosure in Real Estate Transactions: Examine the impact of the Seller's Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS) on the ALJ's final decision. How did the mention of a "tightened drain nut" shift the burden of responsibility to Hernandez, and what does this suggest about the level of scrutiny a buyer must apply to even minor disclosed repairs?

8. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and responsibilities within a homeowners or condominium association.
Common Elements Portions of the condominium property that are not part of individual units and are typically maintained by the Association (e.g., hallways, roofs, structural walls).
P-trap A plumbing fixture under a sink or tub that holds water to prevent sewer gases from entering the home; in this case, a corrugated version was used improperly.
Preponderance of the Evidence The legal standard in civil and administrative cases where a fact is proven if it is shown to be more probable than not.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Barcelona Manor Association, Inc.
SPDS Seller's Property Disclosure Statement; a document where a seller lists known issues or past repairs on a property before a sale.
Unit Boundaries The physical limits of an owner's property, typically defined by the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, and ceilings.

The "Inherited" Leak: A Cautionary Tale of HOA Boundaries and Buyer Responsibility

Imagine being a 4'11" woman, forced to trek to a gym at 11:00 PM or midnight just to take a safe, hygienic shower. For Tatiana Hernandez, this was not a temporary inconvenience but a six-month ordeal. After purchasing her condominium at Barcelona Manor in August 2025, she discovered a persistent leak just two months later—on October 31—originating from a plumbing component she could not see, could not reach, and certainly did not install.

The resulting legal battle, Hernandez v. Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H012-REL), serves as a masterclass in the "traps" of common-interest ownership. The core question before the court was one that haunts every condo buyer: Who is responsible when a concealed plumbing fixture fails—the new homeowner or the Association?

The Anatomy of the Dispute: Location vs. Service

The technical root of the conflict was a non-code-compliant "accordion-style" P-trap serving Hernandez’s bathtub in Unit 624. While it served her tub exclusively, the physical pipe was located entirely within the ceiling cavity of the unit below (Unit 620).

According to testimony from general contractor Erik Myers, this corrugated connection was a "DIY hack job" that violated International Plumbing Code (Section 1002.2). The code requires traps to be "self-scouring"; because the corrugated pipe had interior partitions, it caught debris, leading to the eventual failure. The damage path was extensive and specific:

  • Water ran from the Unit 624 tub drain into the shower ceiling of Unit 620.
  • The flow traveled over the 620 toilet and across the shower ceiling.
  • It ultimately reached the heater closets of both Unit 620 and Unit 616 on the first floor.

Initially, the HOA suspected a leak in the condensation line—a component within the Association's responsibility. However, once an evaluation by AAM maintenance staff (Art and Steve) revealed the P-trap as the source, the Association pivoted, placing all liability on Hernandez.

Competing Arguments: The Homeowner vs. The Association
The Homeowner's Stance The HOA's Stance
CC&R 9.1(iii) & Inaccessibility: Argued the Association is responsible for plumbing facilities outside unit boundaries. Hernandez asserted she cannot maintain what she cannot see without destroying a neighbor's drywall. CC&R 9.2: Argued that owners are responsible for built-in fixtures, including tubs and drains. The HOA maintained that "Unit Exclusivity" (serving only one unit) dictates responsibility regardless of location.
Technical Non-Compliance: Cited IPC Section 1002.2, noting the "accordion" pipe was a pre-existing, non-code-compliant modification she did not perform. The "Inheritance" Principle: Contended that a buyer "steps into the shoes" of the previous owner, inheriting all modifications and defects, legal or otherwise.
Lack of Negligence: Hernandez argued she was not the owner when the negligent work was performed and had no notice of the defect. Substitution of Negligence: Asserted that because the seller disclosed a prior "minor" plumbing issue, Hernandez accepted the unit "on notice" of potential failures.
The "Smoking Gun" in the Disclosures

The turning point for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella was not the physical location of the pipe, but a document Hernandez signed during the purchase: the Residential Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS).

In the SPDS provided by the seller, Guy Keller, two specific entries became the "smoking gun":

  • Line 172: Indicated a "minor" plumbing repair performed by Silverado Rooter & Plumbing.
  • Line 285: The seller noted he was aware of a bathtub leak from a "drain nut" that had been tightened.

Hernandez argued these were minor, resolved issues. Crucially, she had even hired her own professional inspector who failed to flag the P-trap as a major concern. However, the ALJ ruled that these mentions put the Petitioner legally "on notice." In the eyes of the law, once a buyer is notified of a plumbing history—no matter how "minor" the seller claims it to be—they assume the risk of that component's future failure.

The Verdict: Why the HOA Won

On April 29, 2026, Judge Vanella dismissed the petition, basing her decision on three critical legal pillars:

  1. Exclusive Service Outweighs Location: The Judge noted that Hernandez failed to prove the structural cavity was a "common area" maintained by the Association. Because the P-trap served Unit 624 exclusively, it was a "Unit" component, even if located in a neighbor’s ceiling.
  2. The Waiver of the "I Didn't Do It" Defense: Under Arizona Law (A.R.S. § 33-1247) and CC&R 9.4, owners are responsible for repairs necessitated by the act or neglect of an owner. The Judge concluded that by purchasing "on notice" via the SPDS, Hernandez essentially waived the right to claim she wasn't responsible for the previous owner's negligence.
  3. Failure of Proof on Boundaries: The Petitioner could not establish that the area containing the P-trap was part of the "portions of a Unit maintained by the Association" under CC&R 9.1(iii).
Lessons for Every Condo Buyer

This case is a stark warning that in the world of HOAs, "common sense" is often secondary to the strict language of the CC&Rs and the history found in disclosure documents.

  • Read Every Line of the SPDS: A "tightened nut" is rarely just a tightened nut. Minor mentions of plumbing work by contractors like "Silverado Rooter" can be the legal breadcrumbs leading to a total system failure. If it’s on the disclosure, you are "on notice."
  • The "Inheritance" Rule is Absolute: You don't just buy a floor plan; you buy the history of every DIY "hack job" performed by every previous owner. If the previous owner installed a non-code accordion pipe, it becomes your non-code accordion pipe the moment you close escrow.
  • Inspectors Are Not Shielding You: Hernandez’s inspector missed the non-compliant trap. Do not rely solely on a general home inspection. If a disclosure mentions a leak, hire a specialized plumber to perform a camera inspection or a code-compliance check.
  • Boundary vs. Service: Never assume a pipe is the HOA’s responsibility just because it is outside your walls. If that pipe exists solely to drain your tub, most Arizona courts will deem it your responsibility to maintain, regardless of whose ceiling must be cut to reach it.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tatiana Hernandez (Petitioner / Owner)
    Owner of Unit 624 who initiated the dispute regarding plumbing responsibilities.
  • Brandon Lopez (Client's Agent)
    Long Realty Co.
    Realtor representing the petitioner during the condo purchase.

Respondent Side

  • Bryson Struse (HOA Board President)
    Barcelona Manor Association, Inc.
    Testified on behalf of the respondent HOA.
  • Erik Myers (General Contractor / Witness)
    Performed the plumbing inspection and provided testimony/report for the HOA.
  • Destiny Phillips (Community Manager)
    AAM, LLC
    HOA management company representative who communicated with the petitioner.
  • Lisa (Representative)
    AAM, LLC
    Initially contacted the petitioner regarding the water leak.
  • Steve (Onsite Maintenance Staff)
    AAM, LLC
    Inspected the bathroom unit and identified the leak.
  • Art (Onsite Maintenance Staff)
    AAM, LLC
    Evaluated the bathroom leak alongside Steve.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and authored the administrative decision.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received the transmitted administrative decision.
  • David Fisch (Home Inspector)
    WIN Home Inspection
    Prepared the pre-purchase condo inspection report for the petitioner.

Other Participants

  • Guy Keller (Seller)
    Previous owner of Unit 624 who filled out the property disclosure statement.
  • Mario (Unit Owner)
    Downstairs neighbor in Unit 620 who sustained water damage.

Virgina Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H084-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2026-01-09
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Petitioner's petition is affirmed.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Virginia Kostman Counsel —
Respondent Bella Tierra Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1373536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:27 (69.4 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1384451.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:30 (100.6 KB)

25F-H084-REL Decision – 1392666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:55:33 (45.7 KB)

Administrative Briefing: Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association (No. 25F-H084-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association. The dispute centered on a $20 delinquency fee assessed against a homeowner following a chaotic transition between property management companies.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, finding that the Bella Tierra Community Association (Respondent) violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by deeming a payment delinquent when it had been sent to the address provided on the official billing statement. The final order mandated the removal of the delinquency fees and required the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Subsequent filings indicate the Respondent has failed to comply with the reimbursement order.

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Virginia Kostman

• Respondent: Bella Tierra Community Association

• Management Entities: Platinum Management, Inc. (former); Agave Management Solutions (current).

• Primary Issue: Violation of CC&R Article 6.9.1 regarding the assessment of delinquency and late fees.

• Docket Number: 25F-H084-REL

• Hearing Date: December 30, 2025

Factual Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from the abrupt closure of the Association’s management firm and subsequent communication failures during the transition.

The Management Transition

• December 2024: Platinum Management, Inc. issued the first quarter 2025 assessment bills, which were due January 1, 2025. The bills directed homeowners to send payments to Platinum’s address.

• December 17, 2024: Platinum Management abruptly ceased operations.

• January 2025: Agave Management Solutions, founded by a former Platinum executive assistant, assumed management duties.

• Early January 2025: Agave mailed notices to homeowners regarding an updated mailing address for payments.

The Payment Conflict

• January 31, 2025: Petitioner initiated a bank bill-pay for the assessment. Because she had already received the December bill directing payment to Platinum, the payment was sent to the old address.

• March 4, 2025: Petitioner received notice from her bank—not the Respondent—that the check had been returned and destroyed due to an incorrect address.

• April 3, 2025: Petitioner attempted to notify the Respondent of the issue via their online portal. The Respondent claimed they did not receive this message because the portal was not yet fully operational.

• June 2025: Respondent assessed two delinquency fees totaling $20.00 to the Petitioner’s account for the “unpaid” January assessment.

• July 2025: Petitioner paid the January assessment a second time to resolve the balance.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position

Virginia Kostman argued that she was never delinquent because she followed the instructions provided on the official billing statement. She characterized the HOA’s actions as a “campaign of harassment” and an “extortion racket,” alleging that the management company knowingly assessed fees on homeowners who were victims of the management company’s own relocation errors.

Key Quotes from Petitioner:

• “I paid that assessment the minute I got the bill on time to the correct address. It’s a misstatement of fact to characterize it as an unpaid bill.”

• “They’ve been doing it knowingly… this was not a mistake. This was done on purpose.”

• “Being delinquent still prevents me from voting for the new HOA board… It is entirely possible they’re just doing this on purpose to keep me from being able to vote.”

Respondent’s Position

The Association, represented by counsel Eric O’Connor and witness Sarah Malovich (CFO of Agave Management), argued that the Petitioner was technically delinquent because the payment was not “received” by the current management by the January 31 deadline. They maintained that the delinquency fees were merely pass-through costs for administrative work (sending letters) and not penalties.

Key Quotes from Respondent Representatives:

• Eric O’Connor: “This case does not involve a refusal to accept the payment, a failure to communicate, or an improper assessment of penalties. It involves a delayed payment made unintentionally… and an association that exercised patience.”

• Sarah Malovich: “A delinquency fee is a fee that is charged to the association when letters have to go out to the homeowners… we add that fee to the homeowner’s account so that when the homeowner pays, the association recoups the money.”

Governing Provisions: CC&R Article 6.9.1

The hearing focused on the interpretation of Article 6.9.1, which states:

• Any assessment not paid within 15 days of the due date is deemed delinquent.

• Delinquent assessments bear interest at 12% per annum.

• The Board may establish a late fee not to exceed $15 or 10% of the unpaid amount.

• Late fees may only be imposed after providing notice to the owner that the assessment is overdue.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ, Sondra J. Vanella, concluded that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

Findings of Fact

1. Fault of Respondent: The ALJ found that the lack of receipt was due to the “abrupt change in management companies” and not any error by the Petitioner.

2. Timeliness: Because the Petitioner initiated payment by January 31 (the date the HOA considered payments “past due”), and sent it to the only address she had been officially provided at the time of the bill’s issuance, the payment was considered timely.

3. Communication Failures: The Respondent failed to respond to the Petitioner’s April 2025 email and did not notify her of the missing payment until the April statement. The ALJ noted it was “reasonable for Petitioner to have attempted to communicate via the portal in April 2025.”

Final Order

• Affirmation: The Petition was affirmed.

• Fee Removal: Respondent was ordered to remove the $20.00 in delinquency fees from Petitioner’s account.

• Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner for the $500.00 filing fee.

• Compliance: Respondent was directed to comply with CC&R Article 6.9.1 moving forward.

Post-Hearing Developments

On February 4, 2026, the Petitioner filed an inquiry with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) stating that the HOA was not responding to her requests for the $500.00 payment ordered by the Judge. The OAH issued a Minute Entry stating it could not provide legal advice or take further action regarding a “writ of execution,” as its jurisdiction ended with the issuance of the final order.

Study Guide: Virginia Kostman v. Bella Tierra Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision regarding Case No. 25F-H084-REL. It examines the nuances of community association management, the application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the procedural mechanics of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What specific violation did the Petitioner allege against the Bella Tierra Community Association?

2. How did the timing of Platinum Management’s closure affect the January 2025 assessment payments?

3. What is the legal “burden of proof” in this administrative matter, and who was responsible for meeting it?

4. What was the distinction made by the Respondent’s witness between an “HOA late fee” and a “delinquency fee”?

5. On what date did the Petitioner initiate her bank payment, and why was this date significant to the Respondent’s argument?

6. Why did the Respondent claim they never received the Petitioner’s April 3, 2025, communication?

7. What was the Petitioner’s primary concern regarding her “delinquent” status beyond the $20 fee?

8. What did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine regarding the responsibility of the management transition?

9. What was the final order regarding the $500 filing fee and the delinquency fees?

10. How did the ALJ respond to the Petitioner’s February 4, 2026, inquiry regarding a “writ of execution”?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&R Article 6.9.1 by failing to deposit her timely assessment payment and subsequently assessing improper delinquency and late fees. She argued that the management company returned her check without notification and refused to communicate for months despite her efforts to resolve the issue.

2. Platinum Management mailed the January 2025 billings in December 2024 but abruptly closed on December 17, 2024, shortly after the invoices were sent. Because the bills contained the old address for Platinum, payments sent by homeowners were returned or destroyed, as the new company, Agave Management, did not have a forwarding system fully in place at that time.

3. The burden of proof was upon the Petitioner, Virginia Kostman, to establish her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the Petitioner to show that the facts she seeks to prove are more probable than not.

4. Sarah Malovich testified that a late fee is a penalty for delinquent assessments allowed by state statute and CC&Rs, which remains with the association as income. In contrast, a delinquency fee is a “pass-through” cost charged by the management company to the association to cover the expense of sending collection letters.

5. The Petitioner’s bank records showed the payment was initiated on January 31, 2025. The Respondent argued this was untimely because assessments were due January 1, while the ALJ eventually noted that the Association considered payments past due only after January 31, rendering the payment timely.

6. The Respondent claimed the management portal, Vanica, was brand new and not fully operational until April 1, 2025. Sarah Malovich testified that she never received the message and suggested that the transition from using QuickBooks to a formal portal may have caused communication gaps.

7. The Petitioner was concerned that being labeled “delinquent” would strip her of her right to vote during the transition of control from the builder to the homeowners. She argued that the management company was intentionally maintaining her delinquent status to exclude her from participating in the new HOA board elections.

8. The ALJ concluded that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to ensure no interruptions occurred during the management transition. Since the Respondent issued the billing with the Platinum Management address and did not notify residents of the change until January, the failure to receive the payment was not due to any error by the Petitioner.

9. The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner’s petition and ordered the Respondent to reimburse the $500 filing fee. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to remove the delinquency fees from the Petitioner’s account and comply with CC&R 6.9.1 moving forward.

10. The ALJ issued a Minute Entry stating the office would not consider the inquiry because it was inappropriately sent to the OAH or no further action could be taken. The judge clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to litigants.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source materials to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (No answers provided).

1. Systemic Failures in Management Transitions: Analyze how the transition from Platinum Management to Agave Management Solutions created a “perfect storm” of administrative errors. Discuss the responsibilities of a community association to maintain continuity of service and communication during a change in leadership.

2. The Interpretation of CC&R 6.9.1: Examine the language of Article 6.9.1 as provided in the judge’s decision. Evaluate how the specific wording regarding “notice” and “delinquency” applied to the facts of the Kostman case.

3. Good Faith vs. Strict Liability: The Respondent argued they acted in “good faith” and exercised “patience” by waving certain fees, while the Petitioner argued they acted in “bad faith” to prevent her from voting. Compare these two perspectives using evidence from the hearing transcripts.

4. Due Process in Administrative Hearings: Describe the procedural steps of the hearing as outlined by Judge Vanella, including the role of opening statements, witness testimony, cross-examination, and the admission of evidence. How do these procedures ensure a fair outcome for self-represented litigants?

5. Financial and Legal Remediation: Discuss the significance of the ALJ’s final order. Why is the reimbursement of a filing fee sometimes considered a more significant remedy than the removal of the original disputed fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over federal or state agency hearings, such as Sondra J. Vanella in this matter.

A.R.S. § 32-2199

The Arizona Revised Statute giving the Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and community associations.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and financial obligations of a planned community.

Delinquency Fee

A fee charged to an association by a management company for the administrative cost of sending past-due notices, often passed through to the homeowner.

Department of Real Estate

The state agency responsible for overseeing real estate licenses and homeowner association disputes in Arizona.

Late Fee

A penalty fee (limited to $15 or 10% of the assessment in this case) charged to an owner for failing to pay an assessment on time.

Minute Entry

A brief written record of a court’s or judge’s decision, order, or direction that does not constitute a full formal opinion.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent agency authorized to conduct hearings for contested matters arising out of state regulation.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint; in this case, Virginia Kostman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a fact is “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, Bella Tierra Community Association.

Writ of Execution

A court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court.

The $20 Fee That Cost $500: A Masterclass in Standing Up to HOA Bureaucracy

1. Introduction: The Homeowner’s Nightmare

Imagine doing everything right: you receive a bill, you mail your payment to the address provided, and you assume the matter is settled. Then, months later, you discover you have been labeled “delinquent.” You try to call; no one answers. You use the company’s own online portal to explain the situation, and your message vanishes into a digital black hole. While you are being ghosted, the fees continue to pile up.

This was the reality for Virginia Kostman, a homeowner in Tucson’s Bella Tierra community. What began as a routine quarterly assessment spiraled into a legal battle over a $20 “delinquency fee.” In a display of sheer investigative grit, Kostman paid a $500 filing fee to take her Homeowners Association (HOA) to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. Her story is more than a dispute over pocket change; it is a masterclass in how to dismantle bureaucratic gaslighting and hold faceless management companies accountable.

2. Takeaway 1: You Aren’t Responsible for “Management Ghosting”

The conflict began during a chaotic shell game between management firms. In late 2024, Platinum Management—the company then representing the community—abruptly closed its doors on December 17th. This was a week after bills were sent but before the January 1st due date, effectively setting a trap for every resident who followed the instructions on their statement.

A “new” firm, Agave Management Solutions, took over in January 2025. Investigative scrutiny reveals the players didn’t actually change: Agave was founded by Jaimie Petty, who had been the executive assistant to the owner of the defunct Platinum Management. Despite this “same players, different name” reality, Agave penalized Kostman because her check arrived at Platinum’s shuttered office. Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled that the burden of business continuity rests on the HOA, not the resident.

3. Takeaway 2: The “Portal” is a Digital Shield for Incompetence

When Kostman realized her payment hadn’t been processed, she attempted to use Agave’s online portal to resolve the issue. On April 3rd, she sent an email through the site. Agave’s Chief Financial Officer, Sarah Malovich, later testified that the company never received the message because the company was “still getting up and running.”

The investigative “smoking gun” lies in the contradiction of Malovich’s own testimony. She claimed the portal went live on April 1st, yet suggested a message sent two days later on April 3rd vanished because of technical infancy. Agave created a digital black hole, then penalized a homeowner for falling into it. This discrepancy highlights a systemic HOA tactic: using “new technology” as a shield for administrative incompetence while continuing to issue automated delinquency notices.

4. Takeaway 3: “Delinquency” is a Political Tool, Not Just a Financial One

The most alarming revelation from the hearing transcripts is that this $20 fee was a gatekeeping mechanism. The Bella Tierra HOA was transitioning from “builder control” (KB Homes) to homeowner control. Under the community’s governing documents (CC&R 6.9.1), any homeowner labeled as “delinquent” can be barred from voting for the new HOA board.

Kostman’s testimony revealed a struggle for democracy. She feared the Petty family—acting as agents for KB Homes—was using the $20 delinquency status to silence dissent and prevent homeowners from voting them out. This elevates the case from a petty fee dispute to a David vs. Goliath battle over community governance. When an HOA labels you delinquent over a disputed $20, they aren’t just taking your money; they are taking your voice.

5. Takeaway 4: The $500 Gamble for a $20 Injustice

To a casual observer, spending $500 to dispute $20 is a mathematical failure. To a consumer advocate, it is a strategic strike. By paying the filing fee for an Administrative Hearing, Kostman forced the HOA to hire expensive legal counsel and defend their “extortion racket” (as she termed it) in a court of record.

The gamble paid off. Judge Vanella didn’t just order the removal of the $20 delinquency fees; she ordered the HOA to reimburse Kostman for the $500 filing fee. By standing her ground, Kostman turned the tables, making the Association’s predatory administrative practices a net financial loss for them.

6. Takeaway 5: The Court’s Cold Shoulder: When a Win is Just a Piece of Paper

Winning in court is only half the battle; collecting the judgment is the other. A “Minute Entry” filed in February 2026—over a month after the final order—revealed that the HOA had still not paid the $500 reimbursement. When Kostman asked the court how to file a “writ of execution” to force payment, the court’s response was a chilling reminder of the limits of the legal system.

The Judge noted that the court could not provide legal advice and that Kostman’s inquiry “will not be considered.” This is the sobering reality of consumer litigation: even with a signed order from an Administrative Law Judge, a recalcitrant board can remain defiant, leaving the homeowner holding a “paper victory” while the HOA ignores the debt.

7. Conclusion: The Power of the Paper Trail

Virginia Kostman’s victory rested on a single, unassailable fact: she kept the receipts. She produced a bank bill-pay record initiated on January 31st, proving her intent to pay the address provided on the only official bill she had received. Without that digital and paper trail, the management company’s ledger would have been the final word.

In an era of shifting management companies and automated portals that “malfunction” at convenient times, are you keeping the records necessary to protect your home? As this case proves, a $20 fee isn’t always about the money—it’s about control. And as of February 2026, with the HOA still refusing to cut the check, the question remains: are you prepared for the long game required to actually get paid?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Virginia Kostman (Petitioner)
    Self-represented homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Eric P. O'Connor (Counsel)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Attorney representing the Bella Tierra Community Association
  • Sarah Malovich (Witness)
    Agave Management Solutions
    Chief Financial Officer for the respondent's management company

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge over the matter

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Petition dismissed. No action required of Respondent.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Unknown Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:42 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:45 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:49 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:53 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:37:57 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:38:01 (212.3 KB)

Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.

Study Guide: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Kevin W. Schafer and Patricia A. Lawton (Petitioners) and the Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent). It analyzes the legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the final judicial determination regarding homeowner association (HOA) governance and architectural control.

Case Overview: Docket No. 25F-H027-REL

The matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centered on two primary categories of alleged violations: the management of association records and the regulation of homeowner security devices.

Key Entities and Figures
  • Petitioners: Kevin W. Schafer and Patricia A. Lawton, long-term residents and former board members of Sycamore Springs.
  • Respondent: Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • ALJ: Sondra J. Vanella.
  • Key Witnesses: Patricia Lawton (Petitioner) and Kristin Rowlette (HOA Board President).
  • Management Company: Mission Management (current); Adams LLC (former).

Core Themes and Legal Disputes

1. Books and Records Management

The Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to prepare, retain, and provide mandatory records, specifically board meeting minutes and financial compilations.

  • The "Take" vs. "Keep" Debate: A central legal argument concerned A.R.S. § 10-11601 and § 33-1805. The Respondent argued that while statutes require an HOA to keep records of minutes that are taken, there is no statutory language requiring an association to create or take minutes for every meeting. The board testified they stopped taking full minutes—recording only votes—on the advice of counsel to reduce the administrative burden caused by frequent record requests.
  • Financial Compilations: Petitioners cited A.R.S. § 33-1810, which requires a financial audit, review, or compilation within 180 days of the fiscal year's end. The Respondent argued that delays for the 2023 fiscal year were reasonable due to a tax filing extension.
  • Availability vs. Delivery: The Respondent emphasized that documents were made "available" via a homeowners portal. The ALJ noted that Petitioners never officially requested an "inspection" of records at the office, which is the specific procedure outlined in the Bylaws and CC&Rs.
2. Security Devices and Architectural Control

The second issue involved a violation notice and fine issued to the Petitioners for installing a security camera without submitting a Design Modification Request (DMR).

  • The "Carve-Out" Argument: Petitioners relied on CC&R Article IX, Section 18, which prohibits sound devices "except security devices used exclusively for security purposes." They argued this created a "safe harbor" or "carve-out" that exempted security cameras from board approval.
  • Nuisance and Privacy: The Respondent argued that the camera—described as a "Walmart-style" globe camera—was a nuisance because it possessed 360-degree tracking capabilities and overlooked a neighbor’s backyard and hot tub, causing privacy concerns.
  • Architectural Improvements: The HOA contended that under CC&R Article V, Section 3, any "attachment to an existing structure" requires written approval from the Architectural Control Committee.

Summary of Administrative Law Judge Decision

On August 6, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the Petition. The ruling was based on the following conclusions:

Issue ALJ Conclusion
A.R.S. Title 10 Violations Inapplicable; the OAH only has jurisdiction over Title 33 (Planned Communities) in these matters.
Meeting Minutes No violation; the HOA provided minutes that existed. Misplaced records due to a management transition were deemed a reasonable explanation.
Financial Records No violation; tax extensions provided a justifiable reason for delays, and Petitioners failed to pay for audited statements as required.
Security Camera No violation; the camera was deemed a nuisance under CC&R Article IX, Section 18, and the HOA was within its rights to require a DMR for any exterior attachment.
Due Process/Fines No violation; although there was a technical notice error (not sent via certified mail), the Petitioners admitted to receiving the notices and were offered a hearing.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and who carries it?
  • Answer: The burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," and it is carried by the Petitioners.
  1. How did the Respondent justify the board's decision to stop taking comprehensive meeting minutes?
  • Answer: They argued that A.R.S. § 10-11601 only requires corporations to keep minutes that are taken, not to create them for every meeting. They decided to only record votes to streamline operations.
  1. According to the HOA board, why were the 2023 financial compilations delayed?
  • Answer: The association received an extension to file its 2023 taxes, and the accountant required those finalized taxes to complete the compilation.
  1. What specific physical characteristic of the Petitioners' camera led the Board President to label it a nuisance?
  • Answer: The camera had a tracking "eye" and a 360-degree rotation that followed people and overlooked the neighbor’s private backyard and hot tub.
  1. Why did the ALJ dismiss the allegations regarding A.R.S. § 10-11601 and § 10-11620?
  • Answer: The ALJ concluded these statutes were outside the purview of the tribunal, as the OAH adjudicates complaints specifically regarding Title 33 and planned community documents.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Interpretation of "Keep" vs. "Take": Evaluate the Respondent's argument that an HOA is not legally required to create minutes of every meeting. Does this interpretation align with the fiduciary duties of a board to its members? Support your argument using the definitions provided in the hearing (e.g., Black's Law Dictionary or Webster’s).
  2. Homeowner Security vs. Community Privacy: Analyze the conflict between a homeowner's right to secure their property (using the "carve-out" in Article IX, Section 18) and the association’s duty to prevent nuisances. Where should the line be drawn regarding cameras that overlook neighboring properties?
  3. Procedural Fidelity in HOA Governance: The ALJ noted a "technical violation" regarding how notices were mailed (standard email vs. certified mail). Discuss the importance of strict adherence to governing documents versus the "reasonable notice" standard applied by the judge in this case.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who moves to resolve disputes between government agencies and citizens, or in this case, homeowners and associations.
  • Bylaws: The rules adopted by an organization for its internal management and government.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents that dictate the rules for a real estate development or planned community.
  • DMR (Design Modification Request): A formal application a homeowner must submit to an HOA board or architectural committee before making changes to the exterior of their property.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership, typically used for legal or personnel matters.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning that the evidence shows a fact is "more probably true than not."
  • Pro Forma Operating Statement: A financial document (budget) prepared for each fiscal year to be distributed to members.
  • Safe Harbor/Carve-Out: A provision in a statute or contract that protects a party from liability or requirements if certain conditions are met.

The HOA Battleground: Lessons from the Sycamore Springs Dispute

In the high-stakes world of community governance, disputes often transcend simple disagreements, evolving into what legal counsel in the Sycamore Springs matter described as "tactical litigation." This was the reality for Kevin Schafer and Patricia Lawton in their five-year saga against the Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association (HOA). Despite having prevailed in a prior Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) matter against the same Association, the Petitioners found themselves back in the courtroom on July 22, 2025, in a case (No. 25F-H027-REL) defined by "toxicity" and deep-seated neighborhood friction.

The conflict centered on two primary grievances: a perceived lack of transparency regarding missing board minutes and financial records, and the installation of a high-tech, "Walmart-style" security camera that neighbors claimed invaded their private backyard sanctuary. By analyzing the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) final ruling, we can extract essential lessons for homeowners and board members navigating the intersection of state statutes and community CC&Rs.

The Paper Trail: When Records Go Missing

The Petitioners alleged a systemic failure by the Board to prepare and produce five sets of meeting minutes and two years of financial compilations (2022 and 2023). While the Petitioners relied on both Title 10 (non-profit corporation law) and Title 33 (planned community law) to support their claims, the ALJ provided a critical jurisdictional clarification: Title 10 statutes (specifically A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620) were found inapplicable to this matter, as Title 33 governs planned community records (Conclusion of Law #5).

The following table synthesizes the arguments and the HOA's defenses:

Petitioners' Claims Respondent's Defense
Missing Minutes: Failure to provide five sets of minutes within the 10-day window per A.R.S. § 33-1805. Records Lost: 2022 minutes were lost during the transition from Adams LLC to Mission Management. The Board argued they only "keep" what they "take."
2022 Compilation: Petitioners never received the 2022 financial compilation; they were only provided tax reports. Oversight: The HOA argued tax returns were provided as a substitute; the Petitioner failed to notify the Board the compilation was missing (Finding of Fact #21).
2023 Compilation: Failure to provide records within the 180-day statutory window. Tax Extensions: The HOA argued they only owe the immediately preceding fiscal year (2023) and that a tax extension provided a "reasonable delay."
"No Minutes" Policy: The Board claimed they only take minutes when a vote occurs, based on counsel from Smith and Wamsley. Procedural Failure: The HOA argued the 10-day clock was never triggered because the Petitioners never offered to pay for copies or requested an inspection.

The Verdict on Transparency: Why the "How" Matters

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the records violation claims, but not necessarily because she endorsed the Board's "no minutes" theory. Instead, the ruling hinged on a procedural failure by the Petitioners. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Bylaws Article 10.3, there is a sharp legal distinction between "requesting copies" and "requesting an inspection."

The court noted that the Petitioners requested copies via email but never formally requested a physical inspection at the Association's office. Most importantly, the Petitioners failed to offer payment for the "reasonable cost of reproduction" (Conclusion of Law #10). This nuance is vital: an HOA is not in violation of the 10-day production rule if the homeowner has not first fulfilled the obligation to pay for those copies.

Key Ruling: Justifiable Delays and Lost Records The ALJ found the HOA's explanations for missing documents—specifically the records lost by the previous management company (Adams LLC) and delays due to tax extensions—to be "reasonable and justifiable" (Conclusion of Law #12). The law requires records to be "reasonably available," but it does not penalize a board for documents it cannot find due to a predecessor’s negligence or external delays beyond its control.

The Eye in the Sky: Security vs. Privacy

The second phase of the dispute involved a 360-degree tracking security camera installed by the Petitioners. The board’s concern was twofold: aesthetics and privacy. Board President Kristin Rowlette provided what the court deemed "credible and probative evidence" when she testified that while visiting the neighboring lot, she observed the camera's "eye" literally following her movements (Conclusion of Law #14). She described the device as a "Walmart-style" large black globe that sat in stark contrast to the residential surroundings.

The legal battle turned on the interpretation of CC&Rs Article IX Section 18, which contains a "carve-out."

  • The Petitioners' Interpretation: They argued Section 18 provided a "safe harbor" for all "security devices used exclusively for security purposes," exempting them from Board approval.
  • The Board's Interpretation: The Board—which admitted it only created a specific "security camera addendum" after this dispute began—argued that the Section 18 carve-out referred specifically to sound-emitting devices (like driveway alarms). They maintained that any physical attachment to a structure falls under Article V Section 3 (Architectural Control).

The ALJ agreed with the Board, finding that the camera's ability to track movement into the neighbor's "private area"—including a backyard and hot tub frequented by children—constituted a "nuisance" under the CC&Rs.

The Nuisance Ruling: Aesthetics and Neighbors' Rights

The ALJ's Conclusion of Law #14 proved the final word: the camera was a nuisance because it invaded a neighbor's privacy in a manner that was "offensive and detrimental."

Crucially, the court clarified that a homeowner's belief in a "carve-out" does not grant them the right to bypass the Design Modification Request (DMR) process. The DMR process exists to ensure all structural attachments "harmonize with the existing natural surroundings." By refusing to submit a DMR, the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof, regardless of their security concerns.

Final Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The dismissal of the petition serves as a sobering reminder that "tactical litigation" is often a circular journey back to the governing documents. To avoid a five-year legal saga, stakeholders should internalize these three lessons:

  1. "Inspection" vs. "Copies" is a Winning Distinction: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, simply asking for copies is not enough. To trigger a violation, a homeowner must request an inspection or offer to pay the "reasonable cost of reproduction." Procedural errors can sink even the most well-founded records claim.
  2. The DMR is Non-Negotiable: Labels like "security" or "safety" do not provide a blanket exemption from architectural oversight. If you are attaching a device to the exterior of a home, submit the DMR first. Even if the guidelines are vague (as they were in 2024 for Sycamore Springs), the Board's authority over "structural attachments" usually remains intact.
  3. Privacy Trumps Tech: Advanced surveillance tech—specifically tracking cameras—will be scrutinized under traditional nuisance laws. If a device can "track" a neighbor in their backyard, a court is likely to find it "offensive" to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Ultimately, this case underscores the need for "adult supervision" in community governance. When homeowners and boards spend half a decade parsing the difference between "keeping" and "taking" minutes, the community suffers. Adhering to the spirit of neighborly privacy and the letter of the procedural statutes is the only way to exit the litigation cycle.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (Petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (Petitioner)
    Also testified on her own behalf
  • Craig L. Cline (Attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Represented the petitioners
  • Maile L. Belongie (Attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on the service lists

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (Attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
    Represented the respondent; also appears as Nicholas Thompson in transcripts
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (Attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
    Listed on the service lists
  • Kristin Rawlette (Board President and Witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also spelled Kristen Rowlette in the transcripts
  • Jennifer Pemberton (Community Manager)
    Mission Management
    Also appears as Peton, Penbertton, and Pemberton in transcripts

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding judge for the hearing
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • William Custer (Neighbor)
    Neighbor who submitted the formal complaint about the security camera; also referenced as the Kusars/Cusars

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge SJV
Outcome Dismissed
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak, Esq. (Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:36:14 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:36:20 (128.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No
25F-H021-REL
Case Title
Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2025-02-20
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system's design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.

Alj Quote

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

  • Flooding
  • Maintenance
  • Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a '50-year storm,' even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Infrastructure
  • Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that has 'superior evidentiary weight' and is more convincing than the HOA's evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA's expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert's interpretation over the homeowner's assumption.

Alj Quote

Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as 'exceptional and unusually severe,' and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance
  • Enforcement
  • Violations

Case

Docket No
25F-H021-REL
Case Title
Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2025-02-20
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deatta M. Pleasants (Petitioner)
    Owner of lot 185
  • Larry Rice (Co-owner)
    Present with Petitioner; co-owner of the home
  • Daphna Rice (Co-owner)
    Present with Petitioner; co-owner of the home

Respondent Side

  • David Onuschak (Attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Sharon Seekins (Witness)
    Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Board President
  • Zachary Barlow (Witness)
    Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
    Senior Civil Engineer
  • Ryan J. McCarthy (Attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Listed on the order setting hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:34 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:37 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:41 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:46 (66.4 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 915454.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:49 (133.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.

The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.

A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.

I. Case Overview and Procedural History

The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots

On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.

The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”

Key Parties

Name/Entity

Representation/Affiliation

Petitioner

Daniel B. Belt

Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent

Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Witness (Initial Hearing)

Petra Paul

Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)

Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)

William Campbell

Member, BVIA Board of Directors

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Office of Administrative Hearings

Director

Greg Hanchett

Office of Administrative Hearings

Procedural Timeline

• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.

• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.

• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.

• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.

• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.

• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.

• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.

• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.

II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision

Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:

• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”

• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”

• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.

• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.

• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.

• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.

Key Witness Testimony

Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.

Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:

• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.

• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.

• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”

• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”

• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.

William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.

ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)

ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:

1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.

2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.

III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition

Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings

Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:

“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“

He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”

Director’s Response

On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.

The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)

The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.

Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.

1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?

4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.

5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?

6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?

8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?

9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?

10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”

2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.

3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.

4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.

5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.

6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.

7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.

8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.

9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.

10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?

3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?

4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?

5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.

A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)

An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.

Bylaws

The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.

Injunction Against Workplace Harassment

A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.

Planned Development Services (PDS)

An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.

Redacted

Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.

Secret Ballot

A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.

An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict

Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear

Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction

The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).

He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.

This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.

Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.

——————————————————————————–

2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot

The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.

In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”

The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.

Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”

——————————————————————————–

3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage

This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.

Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.

This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.

——————————————————————————–

4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight

In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.

Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy

The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel B. Belt (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Ellen B. Davis (HOA attorney)
    HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
  • William Campbell (board member/witness)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Vice President of the Board
  • Mexal (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as President in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Sarah Linkey (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Treasurer in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Hallett (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Director in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on subsequent transmissions
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    OAH/ADRE
    Issued order regarding Petitioner's filing
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda A. (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents

Other Participants

  • Petra Paul (managing agent/witness)
    Planned Development Services (PDS)
    Testified regarding PDS's role with Respondent's election
  • Lori Rutledge (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list
  • Brandee Abraham (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list

Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Haining Xia Counsel —
Respondent Dorsey Place Condominium Association Counsel Nick Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during the years alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to elect the Board at Annual Members Meetings in 2018 and 2019

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to elect the board during the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during those years.

Orders: Respondent is the prevailing party, and Petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 895555.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:48 (107.4 KB)

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 849881.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:52 (109.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and legal proceedings from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between petitioner Haining Xia and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the Respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around Mr. Xia’s allegation that the Association violated its own bylaws by failing to conduct board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

The Respondent’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not hear the case because the Association’s condominium status was legally terminated in April 2019, prior to the filing of the petition. This termination was previously upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

In the initial hearing on January 7, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, relying solely on assertions without presenting any documentary evidence. Consequently, the petition was denied. A rehearing was granted and held on July 2, 2021, where the petitioner submitted documents but failed to provide testimony explaining their relevance or to establish that board elections were required in the years in question. The ALJ again concluded that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof. The final order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and declared the Respondent the prevailing party.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 21F-H2120016-REL / 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Petitioner: Haining Xia

• Respondent: Dorsey Place Condominium Association

• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Sondra J. Vanella

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 by failing to include board elections on the agendas for the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings and by never electing a board at said meetings.

Chronology of Proceedings

September 21, 2020

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Resolution Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 20, 2020

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing.

January 7, 2021

The initial administrative hearing is held.

January 22, 2021

The ALJ issues a Decision denying the Petitioner’s Petition.

February 18, 2021

The Petitioner files a request for rehearing, citing errors of law and evidence.

March 23, 2021

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an Order Granting Rehearing.

July 2, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

July 14, 2021

The ALJ issues the final Decision, declaring the Respondent the prevailing party and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

Haining Xia’s case rested on several key arguments presented across both hearings.

• Primary Claim: The central assertion was that the Respondent was in “direct violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1 and Article 4.4” because board elections were not held or even placed on the agenda for the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

• Challenge to Condominium Termination: Mr. Xia actively disputed the validity of the Association’s termination as a condominium.

◦ He argued the “Condominium Termination Agreement” was invalid because it “does not contain valid signatures” and represented a “usurpation of corporate power.”

◦ He maintained that because he still holds the title to his unit and the sale has not been finalized, the condominium status could not be legally changed.

◦ He stated his intention to appeal a separate Maricopa County Superior Court ruling which had already upheld the termination agreement.

• Specific Meeting Grievances:

◦ 2018 Meeting: The annual meeting, scheduled for March, was delayed until August 2018. Its stated purpose was to vote on a special assessment, but Mr. Xia asserted there was “not a valid board for that meeting.”

◦ 2019 Meeting: This meeting was held to discuss the termination agreement, but Mr. Xia claimed there was “no election of board members or appointment of officers.”

• Stated Objective: The petitioner requested “a definitive answer as to whether there were valid corporate officers” and, in the rehearing, stated he “wants a finding that there was no legitimate board and no officers appointed.”

• Personal Motivation: During the rehearing, Mr. Xia asserted that he is the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he is fighting “evil,” and is “looking for justice.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s defense was primarily procedural and jurisdictional.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

◦ The basis for this argument was that the Association’s status as a “Condominium” was terminated via a “Condominium Termination Agreement” recorded on April 9, 2019.

◦ As the entity no longer met the legal definition of a condominium under A.R.S. §33-1202(10), the OAH had no authority to hear a dispute between it and a unit owner.

• Superior Court Precedent: The Respondent emphasized that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The ALJ noted that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

• Mootness: The Respondent argued that since the termination, the property is “currently being utilized as an apartment complex,” making the petitioner’s claims moot.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The decisions issued by ALJ Sondra J. Vanella focused squarely on the legal standard of proof required of the petitioner.

The ALJ repeatedly established that the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Failure to Present Evidence: The ALJ found that Mr. Xia “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

• Conclusion: The petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of the specified bylaws.

• Order: The Petition was denied.

• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted based on the petitioner’s claim of “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.”

• Evidence at Rehearing: Mr. Xia submitted several documents, including meeting notices for 2018 and 2019, an “Action by Written Consent,” and a “Board Resolution Filling Director and Officer Vacancies.” However, he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

• Final Conclusion: After reviewing all evidence from both hearings, the ALJ concluded that the petitioner “failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation.” Critically, the ALJ noted that Mr. Xia “failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years [2018 and 2019].”

• Final Order: The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. This order is binding unless appealed to the superior court within 35 days.

Relevant Bylaw Articles

The petition was based on alleged violations of the following articles from the Dorsey Place Condominium Association Bylaws:

Article

Key Provision

Annual Members Meeting

States that at each annual meeting, “the Members shall elect the Board and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”

Election

Stipulates that the Association’s affairs are managed by the Board and that “each director shall be elected at the annual meeting of Members concurrent with the expiration of the term of the director he or she is to succeed.”

Annual Board Meetings

Requires that “within thirty (30) days after each annual meeting of Members, the newly elected directors shall meet forthwith for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and the transaction of other business.”

Study Guide: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

This guide reviews the administrative case between Haining Xia (Petitioner) and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the core allegations, legal arguments, procedural history, and final rulings.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case and what are their roles?

2. What specific violations of the association’s Bylaws did the Petitioner allege?

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?

4. According to the case documents, what is the legal standard known as “preponderance of the evidence”?

5. What was the initial ruling by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 2021, and what was the key reason for this decision?

6. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?

7. What evidence did the Petitioner submit during the rehearing on July 2, 2021?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not invalidate the “Condominium Termination Agreement”?

9. What specific requirements for annual meetings are outlined in Article 3.3 of the Respondent’s Bylaws?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as detailed in the order dated July 14, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Haining Xia, the Petitioner, and Dorsey Place Condominium Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is the unit owner who filed a dispute petition, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association accused of violating its own Bylaws.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. He claimed the Respondent never elected a board at its Annual Members Meetings for 2018 and 2019 and that board elections were not included on the agendas for those meetings.

3. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction because the association’s condominium status was terminated in April 2019 via a “Condominium Termination Agreement.” As it was no longer legally a condominium, the Respondent claimed it did not meet the statutory requirements for OAH jurisdiction over such disputes.

4. The legal standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” It is also described as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

5. The initial ruling on January 22, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s Petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he presented no documentary evidence and relied solely on his own assertions to support his claims.

6. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted this request.

7. During the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted Annual Membership Meeting Notices for 2018 and 2019, a document titled “Action by Written Consent of a Majority of the Unit Owners,” and a November 16, 2018, Board Resolution. However, he did not provide testimony or an explanation concerning these documents.

8. The Administrative Law Judge advised the Petitioner that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Office of Administrative Hearings does not have the legal authority to overturn or modify a ruling from the Superior Court.

9. Article 3.3 states that the annual meeting of Members shall be held in March each year, though it can be delayed until May 31. The purpose of this meeting is for the Members to elect the Board and transact other business that may properly be brought before the meeting.

10. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ruled against the Petitioner, ordering that his appeal be dismissed and naming the Respondent as the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the Petitioner once again failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of the Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Respondent. How did the “Condominium Termination Agreement” of April 2019 fundamentally alter the legal status of the property and impact the proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, beginning with the filing of the petition on September 21, 2020, and ending with the final order on July 14, 2021. Identify the key events, decisions, and legal reasonings at each stage.

4. Evaluate the different arguments made by the Petitioner, including his claims about invalid board elections, the legitimacy of the termination agreement, and his status as a titled owner. Explain why the Office of Administrative Hearings was limited in its authority to rule on certain aspects of his claims.

5. Based on Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4, describe the prescribed process for electing the Board of Directors and conducting annual meetings. How did the Petitioner’s specific allegations in his petition directly challenge whether the Respondent had followed these procedures?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Sondra J. Vanella.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the state of Arizona.

Bylaws

The set of rules governing the internal management and affairs of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. The Petitioner alleged violations of Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Respondent’s Bylaws.

Condominium Termination Agreement

A legal document recorded on April 9, 2019, that officially terminated the condominium status of Dorsey Place. The Respondent argued this action removed it from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings for condominium disputes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and residents. The Dorsey Place Condominium Association is the HOA in this case.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent challenged the OAH’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was no longer legally a condominium.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or other tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies. In this case, the OAH conducted the hearing for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petition

The formal written request filed by the Petitioner to initiate the dispute resolution process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner is Haining Xia.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in this civil case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and as evidence that has “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent is the Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Superior Court

A state trial court of general jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Superior Court had previously issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Condominium Termination Agreement.

He Fought His HOA and Lost—Twice. 3 Costly Mistakes Every Homeowner Should Avoid.

The Frustration and the Fight

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of immense frustration. Rules can feel arbitrary, and board decisions can seem opaque. It’s a common feeling to believe the HOA is in the wrong and to want to stand up for your rights. But what happens when that conviction meets the cold, hard reality of the legal system?

The case of Haining Xia versus the Dorsey Place Condominium Association serves as a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner considering a legal challenge. Mr. Xia’s core complaint was straightforward and, on its face, seemed reasonable: he alleged that his HOA violated its own bylaws by failing to hold board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

Despite his strong convictions, he lost his case. He was then granted a rehearing—a rare second chance—and lost again. This article explores the surprising and crucial lessons from his defeat, revealing why simply being right in principle is often not enough to win in practice.

1. Conviction Is Not Evidence

The single biggest reason for Mr. Xia’s failure was his inability to provide proof for his claims. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was stark: the petitioner “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

Herein lies the central mistake for any potential litigant: in a legal proceeding, the outcome isn’t determined by who feels most wronged, but by who can meet the required standard of proof. In this case, that standard was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition clarifies this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Think of it as the scales of justice. Your evidence doesn’t need to slam one side to the ground, but it must be strong enough to tip the scale, even slightly, in your favor. Mr. Xia arrived with only his convictions, which carry no weight on the scale.

During the rehearing, his testimony was filled with passionate statements, asserting that he was the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he was fighting “evil,” and was simply “looking for justice.” These heartfelt convictions, however, were met with the judge’s blunt conclusion that he failed to meet his evidentiary burden. This reveals a critical lesson: in a legal setting, the passion of one’s convictions is irrelevant without factual, documentary proof to back them up.

2. Fight the Right Battle in the Right Courtroom

A significant portion of Mr. Xia’s case was derailed by a fundamental strategic error. The HOA’s attorney argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)—the body hearing the dispute—had no power over the case because the property had ceased to be a condominium in 2019 pursuant to a “Condominium Termination Agreement.”

In response, Mr. Xia tried to argue that this termination agreement was invalid, claiming it “does not contain valid signatures” and was a “usurpation of corporate power.” This was the wrong argument to make in the wrong place.

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly advised him that the validity of the termination agreement had already been decided by a higher court, the Maricopa County Superior Court. The judge stated plainly that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

This wasn’t just a procedural mistake; it was a credibility-damaging tactical blunder. By focusing on an issue the court had no power to address, he appeared unprepared and distracted from the one claim he was actually there to prove. This strategic error likely damaged his credibility with the judge from the outset, underscoring the importance of understanding a court’s specific jurisdiction before you ever step foot inside.

3. A Second Chance Requires a New Strategy, Not Just New Documents

Being granted a rehearing is a significant opportunity in any legal dispute. Mr. Xia was granted this second chance after citing a specific “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” This wasn’t a general appeal to fairness; it was a procedural opening that offered a rare chance to correct the flaws of his first attempt.

Unfortunately, he failed to capitalize on it. While he did submit documents in the second hearing, the judge noted a fatal flaw in his presentation: he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

Submitting a stack of papers is not the same as building a case. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Each document needed a narrative. Mr. Xia should have walked the judge through each paper, explaining: “This is the notice for the 2018 meeting. As you can see, an election is not on the agenda, which violates Bylaw 3.3. This document proves my specific claim.” Without that narrative, he just presented a puzzle with no solution.

The final, unambiguous conclusion from the second hearing was that the “Petitioner failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” The key takeaway is clear: a procedural victory like a rehearing is meaningless if the fundamental flaws in your case—in this instance, a lack of compelling, well-explained evidence—are not corrected.

From Principle to Proof

Mr. Xia’s journey shows a fatal progression: he began with a case built on feeling instead of fact, tried to fight it in the wrong court over a settled issue, and when given a rare chance to fix these fundamental errors, he failed to change his approach. It’s a story of how a lack of preparation can doom a case from start to finish.

This case is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, a right that cannot be proven does not exist. Before you begin your fight, ask yourself: are you prepared to prove your case, not just believe in it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Haining Xia (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (attorney)
    Dorsey Place Condominium Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Edith Rudder (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed on service list

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for initial hearing and rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who issued Order Granting Rehearing
  • Daniel Martin (judge)
    Referenced regarding a prior Minute Entry

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:27 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:33 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:32 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:36 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.

The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Personnel

Name/Entity

Affiliation / Title

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg

Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Respondent Counsel

Nicole Payne, Esq.

Legal Representative

Respondent Witness

Diana Crites

Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)

Respondent Witness

Rian Baas

Owner, Mowtown Landscape (HOA Landscaping Contractor)

Presiding Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Case Details

Details

Initial Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL

Initial Hearing

August 3, 2020

Initial Decision

August 17, 2020

Rehearing Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Rehearing

February 2, 2021

Rehearing Decision

February 12, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:

◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.

◦ Staining of walking paths.

◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.

• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.

• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.

• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.

• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.

• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:

◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.

◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”

◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.

• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).

• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.

• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.

• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.

Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.

• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:

◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.

◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
  • Diana Crites (property manager)
    Crites and Associates
    Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
  • Rian Baas (witness)
    Mowtown Landscape
    Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Listed as recipient of the decision
  • Luis (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
  • Jill (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate